From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:58:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20130816195849.GA17974@kroah.com> References: <02deef1d90121011ab1df90ad704ef0ee36e2584.1376596224.git.joshc@codeaurora.org> <20130816184614.GA31510@kroah.com> <20130816194714.GH4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130816194714.GH4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Josh Cartwright Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Gilad Avidov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Michael Bohan , Grant Likely , Sagar Dharia , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS > > > > Why? If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away > > with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here, > > right? > > Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading. > > Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want > the SPMI core to create device entries?". It would probably make more > sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as > other busses have. > > The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in > the Makefile: > > spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o If debugfs is enabled why wouldn't you want debugfs entries for your devices? Don't assume a user is going to be able to rebuild their kernel just for debugging stuff (hint, they usually aren't), so having these present, if they don't cause any performance issues, is usually best to always have around. thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755599Ab3HQALE (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:11:04 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:57674 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754490Ab3HQAKu (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:10:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:58:49 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Josh Cartwright Cc: Grant Likely , Rob Herring , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Sagar Dharia , Gilad Avidov , Michael Bohan Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI Message-ID: <20130816195849.GA17974@kroah.com> References: <02deef1d90121011ab1df90ad704ef0ee36e2584.1376596224.git.joshc@codeaurora.org> <20130816184614.GA31510@kroah.com> <20130816194714.GH4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130816194714.GH4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS > > > > Why? If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away > > with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here, > > right? > > Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading. > > Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want > the SPMI core to create device entries?". It would probably make more > sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as > other busses have. > > The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in > the Makefile: > > spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o If debugfs is enabled why wouldn't you want debugfs entries for your devices? Don't assume a user is going to be able to rebuild their kernel just for debugging stuff (hint, they usually aren't), so having these present, if they don't cause any performance issues, is usually best to always have around. thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg Kroah-Hartman) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:58:49 -0700 Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI In-Reply-To: <20130816194714.GH4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> References: <02deef1d90121011ab1df90ad704ef0ee36e2584.1376596224.git.joshc@codeaurora.org> <20130816184614.GA31510@kroah.com> <20130816194714.GH4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: <20130816195849.GA17974@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS > > > > Why? If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away > > with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here, > > right? > > Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading. > > Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want > the SPMI core to create device entries?". It would probably make more > sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as > other busses have. > > The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in > the Makefile: > > spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o If debugfs is enabled why wouldn't you want debugfs entries for your devices? Don't assume a user is going to be able to rebuild their kernel just for debugging stuff (hint, they usually aren't), so having these present, if they don't cause any performance issues, is usually best to always have around. thanks, greg k-h